What caused the Rokslide shift to smallest caliber and cartridges?

[fwafwow]

It seems perhaps they are more inclined to make obnoxious comments on internet forums instead.

Or hold an elected office….

 

[Big_wals]

Same same. And no it would be “detachable magazine”

And the m1 has the same as above, the term detachable magazine was not used yet and who would ever say “hand me another detachable magazine”

Keep reaching…

No, they are not the same.

You can argue this is all pedantic, but in my experience, I have met a grand total of zero (0) people calling magazines "clips" who had any overabundance of firearm knowledge. It seems perhaps they are more inclined to make obnoxious comments on internet forums instead.

Lol, yes, I was being pedantic, but it was in response to @TaperPin calling a magazine a clip. Mostly because he also comes across as pedantic sometimes. No offense meant, all in good fun.

 

[LimeSpoon]

No, they are not the same.

Lol, yes, I was being pedantic, but it was in response to @TaperPin calling a magazine a clip. Mostly because he also comes across as pedantic sometimes. No offense meant, all in good fun.

No worries, that wasn't directed at you. I was getting annoyed at someone else's nonconstructive one-sentence posts and their refusal to elaborate and just decided to throw out a little bit of a rant there.

In response to some of TaperPin's comments, I'd bring up some of the pictures of wound channels in elk from the .223 thread and ask what exactly about them is insufficient for killing an elk in one shot, and whether a second shot would seriously be needed as anything other than insurance & good measure, but frankly I am a bit too tired for all that and I am sure you guys have all already rehashed it a hundred times over. I think it does also say something about .223 that a second followup shot can be placed so easily in the vitals with a bolt gun at all.

 

[Big_wals]

No worries, that wasn't directed at you. I was getting annoyed at someone else's nonconstructive one-sentence posts and their refusal to elaborate and just decided to throw out a little bit of a rant there.

In response to some of TaperPin's comments, I'd bring up some of the pictures of wound channels in elk from the .223 thread and ask what exactly about them is insufficient for killing an elk in one shot, and whether a second shot would seriously be needed as anything other than insurance & good measure, but frankly I am a bit too tired for all that and I am sure you guys have all already rehashed it a hundred times over. I think it does also say something about .223 that a second followup shot can be placed so easily in the vitals with a bolt gun at all.

Yeah, I haven’t hunted for as long or killed as many animals as some guys, maybe a lot of guys. But in my humble opinion and experience, anyone who thinks their shot placement and cartridge selection means zero follow up shots on elk, maybe hasnt shot very many elk.

I shot a spike elk several years ago, first shot was around 240 yards. Followed it for a ways, it was bedded. Shot it again, it jumped up and took off. Tracked it again. Same thing happened. 3/4 mile later, I caught up to it for the third time and shot it in the head. Two shots thru the lungs, one liver hit. 165 SSTs from a 30/06, all three pencilled through and did very little damage. Who knows why, maybe just a bad lot of bullets? Weird stuff happens sometimes when youre shooting live animals.

 

[atmat]

ummmmmmmmmm no.

TIL FAAFO, who does a fair amount of trolling here and pretending to be an expert, doesn’t know the difference between a magazine and a clip.

 

[TaperPin]

Cheese and rice - you guys have a complete failure to communicate unless I call it a magazine?! Lord help us all. Lol

Where I grew up we used clip and magazine interchangeably - sorry if you guys were clueless what I was talking about.

 

[TaperPin]

TIL FAAFO, who does a fair amount of trolling here and pretending to be an expert, doesn’t know the difference between a magazine and a clip.

I simply point out the obvious holes in much of the bla bla bla bs in the echo chamber from time to time. Don’t worry, I have no delusion that anything I say will in any way change the way you see the the world. I say it for the young guys trying to make sense out of it so all they hear isn’t so one sided.

 

[atmat]

I simply point out the obvious holes in much of the bla bla bla bs in the echo chamber from time to time. Don’t worry, I have no delusion that anything I say will in any way change the way you see the the world. I say it for the young guys trying to make sense out of it so all they hear isn’t so one sided.

I didn’t even mention or reply to you. I was talking to/at the person I included in my comment.

 

[Thegman]

If someone doesn’t now their head from ass and can’t judge when a shot should be taken, then your best advice is to fill it full of holes and have an extra clip ready to go?

You mean passing on shots, like say, an elk's ass disappearing over a ridge?

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

I like how this “echo chamber” term keeps being tossed around like it’s something negative. Even seen it from mods on this site as to perpetuate that going out and trying things for ourselves, and then reporting on those things, and encouraging others to try those things, brings a negative connotation to the site in general. That’s backwards thinking.

This is a go use your equipment and talk about it forum. If the people who go out and do that are finding the same results and reporting, that’s not an “echo chamber”. That’s just folks learning and being more efficient hunters and killers. Ya know, just one of the main points of joining this site.

 

[fwafwow]

I like how this “echo chamber” term keeps being tossed around like it’s something negative.

It’s just one of a handful of “points” or labels that lack any logic or data. If this is an echo chamber, what’s the support that the POV is wrong - apart from lore, custom and quoting some guy who writes for an NRA publication?

 

[Nomosendero]

I like how this “echo chamber” term keeps being tossed around like it’s something negative. Even seen it from mods on this site as to perpetuate that going out and trying things for ourselves, and then reporting on those things, and encouraging others to try those things, brings a negative connotation to the site in general. That’s backwards thinking.

This is a go use your equipment and talk about it forum. If the people who go out and do that are finding the same results and reporting, that’s not an “echo chamber”. That’s just folks learning and being more efficient hunters and killers. Ya know, just one of the main points of joining this site.

I thought this is the purpose of forums like this, to post results so we can all learn something!
Opinions don't matter to me much if at all!

 

[FredH]

Ops original topic has merit. Low Testosterone?

 

[HandgunHTR]

Ops original topic has merit. Low Testosterone?

Why is it that as soon as the discussion comes up about shifting to lower recoiling firearms someone always chimes in with the, "You must be a sissy", or "low testosterone", or "get a man-bun." or some other derogatory remark?

At the end of the day, if you are hunting an animal, you owe it to the animal to make the most precise shot that you can. As has been proven over and over and over, with factual data, not opinions or anecdotes, a lower recoiling rifle increases hit rates. Period.

If you are that insecure that you can't stand facts getting in the way of your preconceived notions, then maybe the people with a testosterone problem aren't on this side of the fence, because that sure sounds like emotions overruling logic, which is a predominately female attribute.

 

[FredH]

Why is it that as soon as the discussion comes up about shifting to lower recoiling firearms someone always chimes in with the, "You must be a sissy", or "low testosterone", or "get a man-bun." or some other derogatory remark?

At the end of the day, if you are hunting an animal, you owe it to the animal to make the most precise shot that you can. As has been proven over and over and over, with factual data, not opinions or anecdotes, a lower recoiling rifle increases hit rates. Period.

If you are that insecure that you can't stand facts getting in the way of your preconceived notions, then maybe the people with a testosterone problem aren't on this side of the fence, because that sure sounds like emotions overruling logic, which is a predominately female attribute.

Oh the horror! No one is giving up precision by using a 7MM RM or 300 Win Mag. In no way does a 6.5 increase hit rates. What increases hit rates is taking shots within your level of competency and the cartridges capability. However bullet mass and energy have their place.

 

[JGRaider]

Ops original topic has merit. Low Testosterone?

Why is it that as soon as the discussion comes up about shifting to lower recoiling firearms someone always chimes in with the, "You must be a sissy", or "low testosterone", or "get a man-bun." or some other derogatory remark?

It's a ridiculous response from those with little experience, lower than normal IQ, or likely both.

 

[FredH]

It's a ridiculous response from those with little experience, lower than normal IQ, or likely both.

Or has no issues shooting a 7-08 instead of a 223 on deer and hogs or using a 30-06 on an elk hunt. The low testosterone comment was mostly to draw out the sensitive types. A more appropriate answer would be than most shoot paper or do very little shooting. Yes if you don't shoot much a soft recoiling rifle is going to be easier for you to shoot. The smaller cartridges work fine in open country or over feeders. A public land elk hunt in Western Washington is not the place for a 243 running a fancy match bullet. It can be done but why? I consider it more likely that those who espouse cartridges like the 223 or 243 for all hunting as probably having little experience, lower than normal IQ or both. I have used both cartridges but for varmints and deer where appropriate. Just because I prefer a 7-08 does not mean I am dumb or inexperienced.

 

[eric1115]

Oh the horror! No one is giving up precision by using a 7MM RM or 300 Win Mag. In no way does a 6.5 increase hit rates. What increases hit rates is taking shots within your level of competency and the cartridges capability. However bullet mass and energy have their place.

Do you think recoil has no effect on performance/precision?

Can you provide a 10-20 shot group from your .300WM?

I've noticed substantial difference in group size between high and low recoiling rifles, especially in non-ideal, field type shooting positions.

 

[Marbles]

Who you gonna believe then, random wannabe's on the internet? LMAO......... I suggest emaling Phil Shoemaker and listen to what he says.

You mean the guy who carries a 9 mm for bear protection and killed a brown with it?

 

[atmat]

Y

Or has no issues shooting a 7-08 instead of a 223 on deer and hogs or using a 30-06 on an elk hunt. The low testosterone comment was mostly to draw out the sensitive types. A more appropriate answer would be than most shoot paper or do very little shooting. Yes if you don't shoot much a soft recoiling rifle is going to be easier for you to shoot. The smaller cartridges work fine in open country or over feeders. A public land elk hunt in Western Washington is not the place for a 243 running a fancy match bullet. It can be done but why? I consider it more likely that those who espouse cartridges like the 223 or 243 for all hunting as probably having little experience, lower than normal IQ or both. I have used both cartridges but for varmints and deer where appropriate. Just because I prefer a 7-08 does not mean I am dumb or inexperienced.

Honest questions for you to answer:

1) How many rounds do fire per year?
2) What % of the time can you spot your impacts with the .30-06?
3) How fast can you shoot two shots in a row on target?